Well, actually, yes you can. Whether time genuinely originated at the Big Bang (a legitimate possibility) or our ability to meaningful posit or understand cause/effect relationships merely breaks down at that point as an artifact of theory, "before the Big Bang" is not something that we can meaningfully speak to. And as Banno and others have pointed out, its comparable to talking about "north of the North Pole" in that trying to extend talk of temporal or causal relations past the Big Bang singularity is undefined- nonsense, word salad- given everything we currently know and lacking an adequate theory for situations where gravitation dominates on the quantum scale (as in the Big Bang and the interior of black holes).I agree it's immaterial if the science and the maths break down at the singularity. But you can't just stop at the singularity and say things like there is no before, or prior state for example.
No you can't because we have an example of something that exists and can be discussed, the universe which originated in the Big Bang. If we can talk about that one, then we can talk about other ones, or other types of them, or something else. Certainly something which is evidenced in this universe and might be present in another.Well, actually, yes you can.
What breaks down is the maths and physics, not philosophical questions about origins, or other things.Whether time genuinely originated at the Big Bang (a legitimate possibility) or our ability to meaningful posit or understand cause/effect relationships merely breaks down at that point as an artifact of theory
As I said, it's only nonsense when one is referring to some event of the contents, or products of the Big Bang as prior to the event itself. Something which is self evident and I agree with (well except for a notional undefined substance, or state, which did the exploding)."before the Big Bang" is not something that we can meaningfully speak to. And as Banno and others have pointed out, its comparable to talking about "north of the North Pole" in that trying to extend talk of temporal or causal relations past the Big Bang singularity is undefined- nonsense,
Talk about word salad.word salad- given everything we currently know and lacking an adequate theory for situations where gravitation dominates on the quantum scale (as in the Big Bang and the interior of black holes).
Enai De A Lukal
175
↪Frank Apisa
If you think I am wrong...easy enough to show me to be wrong.
I asked you a question, which you didn't answer. I'll ask again. What is your evidence/arguments for the following assertions-
There is NO way to KNOW if there is at least one god...or if there are none.
There is NO way to KNOW if it is more probable that there is at least one god than that there are none...,or vice versa.
One CANNOT get to any of those things through reason...or logic...or science...or math.
Or does your evasion of the question mean that you don't have any evidence or argument for these assertions? — Enai De A Lukal
180 Proof
1.5k
Or does your evasion of the question mean that you don't have any evidence or argument for these assertions?
— Enai De A Lukal
C'mon Frank Apisa show your "evidence or arguments" him/her like you showed me. :razz: — 180 Proof
EricH
165
↪Frank Apisa
About 6 months ago you started this discussion: About This Word Atheist
In this discussion you objected to folks who were attempting to re-define the word atheist to include agnostics - i.e. that agnosticism is a type of atheism.
I agreed with you - when words have clearly defined meanings that have been in use for hundreds of years, it is pointlessly confusing to re-define them to fit into some sort of analytical framework. Just come up with a new word.
Now perhaps I am not following you, but it seems like you are doing the same thing. You are re-defining the word god(s) and removing the supernatural aspect - but by doing this you are eliminating they single most defining aspect of the word god - namely that god(s) is/are supernatural in nature.
So I respectfully suggest that you come up with a new word to avoid this confusion. Here is my feeble attempt - I'm sure there are better:
UETPE: An acronym for Unknown Entities That Physically Exist. An UETPE is a hypothetical entity that physically exists and thus is potentially knowable/discoverable by some as of yet undiscovered tool/device/method. It is also possible that UETPE(s) are somehow involved in the creation of the universe as it currently exists.
Now we can re-formulate your algorithm:
I do not know if UETPEs exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect UETPEs CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of UETPEs is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that UETPEs MUST EXIST...that UETPEs are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
I would agree with this. I am agnostic on the existence of UETPEs.
But when it comes to the “existence of god(s)” I am ignostic. The word god is incoherent and any attempts to analyze/discuss the “existence” of an incoherent word are pointless. — EricH
If you want to be "ignostic" on the question of whether gods exist or not...I respect that. — Frank Apisa
Don't think so, Jorn. — Frank Apisa
EricH
166
If you want to be "ignostic" on the question of whether gods exist or not...I respect that.
— Frank Apisa
For clarity's sake I am going to sort of repeat myself - but I will use a different approach.
Here's the OP: What are your positions on the arguments for God?
And my answer:
1) Using Frank Apisa's definition?
I am agnostic.
2) Using Pantheist definition(s)?
I neither understand nor identify with Pantheism - at least based on my limited understanding. If there is sufficient overlap with some Pantheistic definition & Frank Apisa's definition then I would take a look.
3) Using the definition of the remaining ~7.5 billion people on this planet
I am ignostic. — EricH
jorndoe
993
Don't think so, Jorn.
— Frank Apisa
Are you telling me what I was on about with my own comment...? Odd. — jorndoe
You still didn't answer the question. Its a pretty straightforward one. You made a serious of assertions. I ask you, on what basis do you make these assertions? Evidently you make these assertions on the basis of nothing whatsoever, so they amount to blind guessing on your part. Amusing, in a pitiful sort of way. Clearly in over your head, even in the kiddie pool. :smile:Easiest assertion to show as wrong.
All you have to do is give one syllogism that shows any of those things...and my assertion falls to ruin.
But you cannot.
So, I laugh at the people who suppose they can logically come to "there is a god" or who pretend they are being scientific and logical when they come to "there are no gods"...and enjoy the pretense for its humor value.
I thank you good folk for entertaining me.
This is a particular interpretation of the theory and not exactly the one or only. — substantivalism
But I'm not talking about events back in time from the singularity, I'm talking about its origin, or the existence of other singularities, or other things which are not products of the singularity we find ourselves in.Well, once you figure out precisely how we can meaningfully extend talk of temporal or causal relations backwards in time to/past the Big Bang singularity, you let us know. Until then your optimism that we can do so, somehow, some way, doesn't amount to much.
But this is contradictory, and that's the point- causes precede their effects (i.e. temporally), so if you're trying to talk about the cause or origin of the Big Bang- so, divine creation for instance- then you're talking about "events back in time from the singularity". But that's nonsense, as far as our best current picture of the early universe goes, the singularity at t=0 is like someone took a cosmic hole-puncher and just cut out a hole in the timeline of the universe. We can't extend causality, temporal relations, geodesics, or anything through that point- you can't pass go, you can't collect $200, until we know how gravity operates on the quantum scale we're just spitting goobledeegook.But I'm not talking about events back in time from the singularity, I'm talking about its origin
I'm not doing that, what I am talking about is any processes involved in the origin of the Big Bang. This does not necessitate a prior event, it is an enquiry into how it originated. The means by which it originated might not be temporal, or spatial, or might involve separate temporal, or spatial events. Separate from the contents of the Big Bang event.But this is contradictory, and that's the point- causes precede their effects (i.e. temporally), so if you're trying to talk about the cause or origin of the Big Bang- so, divine creation for instance- then you're talking about "events back in time from the singularity"
Its only nonsense if you make the assumption that universal, or absolute time originated in the Big Bang we see before us. Are you making that assumption?. But that's nonsense, as far as our best current picture of the early universe goes, the singularity at t=0 is like someone took a cosmic hole-puncher and just cut out a hole in the timeline of the universe.
Science can't (this is not a scientific discussion).We can't extend causality, temporal relations, geodesics, or anything through that point- you can't pass go, you can't collect $200,
Yes close the discussion down, nothing to see here.until we know how gravity operates on the quantum scale we're just spitting goobledeegook.
Enai De A Lukal
178
↪Frank Apisa
Easiest assertion to show as wrong.
All you have to do is give one syllogism that shows any of those things...and my assertion falls to ruin.
But you cannot.
So, I laugh at the people who suppose they can logically come to "there is a god" or who pretend they are being scientific and logical when they come to "there are no gods"...and enjoy the pretense for its humor value.
I thank you good folk for entertaining me.
You still didn't answer the question. Its a pretty straightforward one. You made a serious of assertions. I ask you, on what basis do you make these assertions? Evidently you make these assertions on the basis of nothing whatsoever, so they amount to blind guessing on your part. Amusing, in a pitiful sort of way. Clearly in over your head, even in the kiddie pool. :smile: — Enai De A Lukal
Well, cutting to the chase, if there is (at least one) theistic g/G (i.e. "revealed supernatural agency") then ALL of our sciences are invalidated and histories mere fictions, because only that theistic g/G is real and only Its "revelations" are true and the moral values It espouses (i.e. "commandments") are objective - or, at the very least, all human endeavors contrary to, or inconsistent with, Its "revealed truths" are false and immoral by definition. Besides the nature of nature itself, I think the very nature of human reason and human agency (re: integrity, dignity) depends on answering this singular question, and then living with that answer if it's "yes" or living with the question if the answer is "no".How is the question of God's existence important? What will change once we know whether there's a God or not? — TheMadFool
Well, cutting to the chase, if there is (at least one) theistic g/G (i.e. "revealed supernatural agency") then ALL of our sciences are invalidated and histories mere fictions, because only that theistic g/G is real and only Its "revelations" are true and the moral values It espouses (i.e. "commandments") are objective - or, at the very least, all human endeavors contrary to, or inconsistent with, Its "revealed truths" are false and immoral by definition. Besides, the nature of nature itself, I think the very nature of human reason and human agency (re: integrity, dignity) depends on answering this singular question, and then living with that answer if it's "yes" or living with the question if the answer is "no". — 180 Proof
I'd say science seeks "the creator" by studying "creation" (e.g. ... Hypatia ... Maimonides, Ibn Rushd, Aquinas ... Spinoza ... Newton, Leibniz, et al). The scientist seeks the ultimate explanation (ToE) of the universe - whatever there is - or, failing that, some fundamental [process] that cannot even in principle be encompassed, or accounted for, by physics, that is, the super-natural. Perhaps "the creator" is just asymptotically over the (Planck? Hubble? Hartle-Hawking?) horizon - thus, the inexorable (metaphysical? theological? promethean/faustian?) drive to know infinitely more (about) "The Infinite". :fire:I thought science ignores the creator and channels its attention to the creation. — TheMadFool
EricH
167
↪Frank Apisa I still have not communicated. I'll try one more time.
The point I am trying to make is that you - Frank Apisa - have committed the most mortal philosophical sin there is - namely you have contradicted yourself. Cue music from Psycho — EricH
Back here you criticized DingoJones and others for re-defining the word "atheist" far beyond it's commonly accepted usage. You stated that you were absolutely not an atheist and - IMHO - correctly insisted that we stick with common usage. — Eric
However - in this conversation you are redefining the word "god" far beyond it's standard usage. Now perhaps you have changed your mind - and now think that it's OK in a philosophical discussion to redefine words for beyond their common usage. — Eric
But if that is the case, then you will have no grounds to object the next time someone says that you are some sort of atheist. I.e. - you will have no grounds to object based upon the fact that they have re-defined words. - you will have to come up with a new line of reasoning. — Eric
In your reply I expect (and hope) that you will address this inconsistency.
It can't be answered (it is a bit more complicated than that*), also all those things that you say depend on it, only matter if one is a materialist, or a scientismist.Besides, the nature of nature itself, I think the very nature of human reason and human agency (re: integrity, dignity) depends on answering this singular question, and then living with that answer if it's "yes" or living with the question if the answer is "no".
Apparently, "it can't be answered" By You; many many, however, have answered the g/G-question intelligently either way, some even have conclusively (i.e. soundly - though no theist or deist has yet).It can't be answered (it is a bit more complicated than that*), also all those things that you say depend on it, only matter if one is a materialist ... — Punshhh
I meant philosophically, many have answered it by other means.Apparently, "it can't be answered" By You; many many, however, have answered the g/G-question intelligently either way, some even have conclusively (i.e. soundly - though no theist or deist has yet).
Btw, call me "scientific materialist" and I'll answer to that every time. — 180 Proof
I'd say science seeks "the creator" by studying "creation" (e.g. ... Hypatia ... Maimonides, Ibn Rushd, Aquinas ... Spinoza ... Newton, Leibniz, et al). The scientist seeks the ultimate explanation (ToE) of the universe - whatever there is - or, failing that, some fundamental [process] that cannot even in principle be encompassed, or accounted for, by physics, that is, the super-natural. Perhaps "the creator" is just asymptotically over the (planck? hubble? hartle-hawkin?) horizon - thus, the inexorable (metaphysical? theological? promethean/faustian?) drive to know infinitely more (about) "The Infinite". :fire: — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.